2001: A Space Odyssey has been restored
 

:eek::eek::eek:


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oR_e9y-bka0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Revolutionary movie.

Dumb ending. And yes, I 'get it'.

One of the most overrated films ever put to screen. Kubrick wasn't a genius.

I'd say he was ahead of the game, though honestly I like a great deal other directors over him.

Easy to see it that way when you've seen all the work it inspired first. The waves of films that took direction from this and all the ones that took direction from them all owe 2001 a great deal.

No, it's easy to say because it's not a great or particularly good film. It's a very pretty, absurdly boring graphic novel. It looks exactly like a great big comic minus the action and adventure.
I'm not a fan of films that rely on visual effects rather than scripts. I'm not a Kubrick fan at all and aside from that I firmly believe that long before 2001 there were better films that offer more to the genre.
Arthur C Clarke was pretty cool though.

Rod Serling was the greatest contributor to screen science fiction and there's more credible, thought provoking, provocative writing in a Twilight Zone 30 second intro than in the three hours of 2001.

Well its def not a script film. No one would argue against that.

But there isnt anything prior to 2001 with the scope of it. No scifi film maker from the decade after would fail to sight 2001 as the, not a but the, inspiration for their work.

Disliking something doesnt effect the fact it was groundbreaking.

Tbf tho i love 2001. But i can also watch silent pictures so i dunno...different strokes

Have you got a list of directors you can cross reference that claim with?
I'm sure you're confusing inspiration with source here. That's a hell of a claim to make and much harder for you to prove than for me to disprove. The burden would be on you.
Here's a life preserver.
I'm not denying the technical prowess of the film nor am I arguing against anybody enjoying it.
What I am saying is that to me it is simply boring.
I'd get bored of looking at any pretty things especially if they didn't do much beyond look nice. That's why I don't hang pictures up.

Silent films are a different beast entirely. I enjoy some of them. 2001 is not a silent film.

Kubrick just wasn't my kind of storyteller. Him and Michael Cimino had a lot in common that way. Too busy painting with cameras.

What about musicals?

High School Silent Film does have a ring to it

As long as ID4,Bad Boys and pretty much any other film with Will Smith exists 2001 will never be one of the most overrated films.

Does this restored version add back in the footage Kubrick had cut out after the first week it was in theaters?

For starters thats a poor attempt at semantics:

source
sôrs/Submit
noun
1.
a place, person, or thing from which something comes or can be obtained.
"mackerel is a good source of fish oil"
synonyms: origin, birthplace, spring, fountainhead, fount, starting point, ground zero; More
verb
1.
obtain from a particular source.

in·spire
inˈspī(ə)r/Submit
verb
1.
fill (someone) with the urge or ability to do or feel something, especially to do something creative.

These are clearly interchangeable terms and its a fools errands to argue any different.

Now with that said i hope you didnt think that would be a challenging challenge. This is the most inspirational film not called star wars. Like giving candy to a baby:

Steven Spielberg called it his film generation's "big bang." In other words a film so influential that it birthed the the entire universe of thought for the genre.

Lucas says it was "hugely inspirational", labeling Kubrick as "the filmmaker's filmmaker". And of course no Star Wars...what does scifi even look like? Thats all thanks to 2001.

Sydney Pollack refers to it as "groundbreaking" course groundbreaking iimplies nothing came before that did what it did.

William Friedkin states 2001 is "the grandfather of all such films". Grandfather of course is a colloquialosm used to describe what came first.

Ridley Scott stated he believed 2001 was the unbeatable film that in a sense killed the science fiction genre. Which is to say that the film is the absolute mecca. Dwarfing everything before or after it.

Film critic and film historian Michel Ciment wrote: "Kubrick has conceived a film which in one stroke has made the whole science fiction cinema obsolete."

And furthermore its not that script that people praise it for. Its the oustanding cinematography, its exceptional use of score (possibly the best of all time,) and it stunning visuals (nothing comes close prior.)

So if you judge a film by a single metric (monologues and dialogues make two i suppose) then yeah this might not be for you.

But its excellence exists outside of your appreciation.

You can find dna of 2001 in something as recent as the Lost in Space reboot. Arguing its significance to the sci-fi genre is absurd and very 'hipster', tbh. You don't have to like Akira to know what it did for anime for instance.

So you can't provide a comprehensive list of directors who have all made science fiction films since that all agree that 2001 is their inspiration, that's what you're saying is it?

You're trying to fob me off with a bunch of big directors there, not the entire list which is what you initially claimed.

You can't read for shit though, Kalyx. You have proven this numerous times.

Nobody is saying it wasn't a benchmark or a massive achievement. I'm saying I don't particularly like it beyond appreciating the technical skill and the pretty imagery of it, and there are others who have taken zero inspiration from it in the production of their own films.

Destor just handed me a list of unsourced quotes from a short list of big name directors and critics when asked to back up his claim that every film made in the decade since 2001 was solely and directly inspired by it.

I just prefer films with a bit of substance to the script.
I'm not knocking anybody that likes it when directors put a big scrolling roll of beautiful imagery on the screen with virtually no audio storytelling. I just don't particularly like it.

Slik made a thread about a film you love and I happen not to love it.
Your reaction is very insecure. I imagined you were made of sturdier stuff, Destor.

HG Wells, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Ray Bradbury, Harlan Ellison and Rod Serling are all writers who inspired film makers of the fifties, sixties, and seventies onwards and into today. There are thousands more to pick from beyond the English speaking world. Don't even get me started on directors who made weird science fiction films completely unrelated or uninspired by 2001 because there are too many to list. Even by finding one example of a film maker post 1968 making an adapted film from source material different to 2001 would make you wrong. FOR INSTANCE: Planet of the Apes carried on well into the 70's and it wasn't inspired by 2001 at all let alone exclusively.

I don't see how anyone could reasonably stand behind such a brazenly declaratory sentence and one which is so easily proven false.

You're probably right about source and inspiration being acceptable synonyms but is that really the hill you want to die on?
You don't win one argument by starting another smaller one, winning that and then walking away arms raised.

You have said a silly thing that you cannot defend about a film that you love. I actually understand you wanting everybody else to love it but to claim that it was the sole inspiration behind every science fiction film afterwards is just stupid.
Trot out all the Ridley Scott quotes you can, Ridley doesn't speak for all other film makers.

Step outside yourself for a moment, mate. This is not a good look. Lates.

I think you need to get to know yourself a bit better first.

We could all use a little time.

I don't write tangents over how many directors obviously were inspired by 2001.

I write tangents about social politics.

That was a lot of vitriol over 2001.

Did Stanley Kubrick film a private movie with your mom and you walked in, only to have that look of melted innocence ruin his shot, so he made you come in 43 more times until you were completely glassed over with shock that it looked like apathy on film and he allowed you to leave... and the entire time, 2001 was on in the background?

2001 is tearing tpww apart

It's funny when people get upset over people not sharing their love. Always.

I do :heart: Destor though

2001 is one of those movies that you are supposed to like otherwise you dont know jack about films. Bored me to tears. Special Effects are great but that's about it. I like Kubrick but this and Barry Lyndon are two of the most unnecessarily long and pretentious movies made

None of us are concerned with you loving it. You're showing your hand putting the discussion in that way.

2001, Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter, Raging Bull... there are a lot of big films with big reputations that I'd only be lying by saying I liked.

Nobody is even really talking to you mate.

You can't read so this is all pointless.

Strawmen are very gay.

Going to read the rest of Kalyx' posts with my eyes wide shut lads.

...

Eh lads!


...lads?

Who the Hell is rating Bad Boys that highly?!

Strawman?

I responded to your post using exactly your words.

You strawmanning yourself?

You actually respond to virtually nothing directly because you're the sort of person who holds their hands over their ears and says "lalalalala" instead of aknowledging a fact that disputes/disproves whatever stance you happen to be taking at the time.

This is a regular occurrence with you.

Your mouth if too full of the garnish to engage in any meaty discussion. I think you just shit a brick and start attacking anything but the point really.

2001 was cool

2010 sucked though

I thought this was a remake for the first 10 seconds it looks amazing

There is a glaring difference in "not sharing love" and denying how pivotal and influential the film was.

I'm a far bigger fan of Clockwork Orange or Full Metal Jacket, and think 2001 down there with the first Star Trek movie in terms of being pretty flippin' boring, but this is one of those flicks that the cinematography touched a lot of correct nerves in a lot of correct people, much how Citizen Kane or the original Birth of a Nation did ages before for movies period, or Blade Runner in science fiction in particular.

I like that he says everybody else is upset. This all started with his revolt against one of the most well known major influences in cinema. Cause he didn't like it.

At no point have I insulted or denied the influence of "2001: a Space Odyssey" though so what are you actually talking about?

I have said I didn't particularly like it, admitted it was visually stunning and groundbreaking and because I denied that it was the SOLE INFLUENCE FOR EVERY SINGLE SCI FI FILM MADE IN THE DECADE AFTERWARDS you guys have decided to act as though I said "it stinks and is for losers".

This is very much a problem born of your lack of intelligence. You actively ignore everything I say on the topic by way of pretending you can't see it.

What the fuck is the point in that?

You're not sparing yourself any embarrassment by arguing against points nobody made. It makes you look stupid and cowardly.